Friday, July 15, 2005

A court substitutes its judgement for that of the elected officials in the legislature.
The Supreme Court found no rational basis for the cap, which is now roughly $433,000. It rejected the argument that the limit cuts medical costs.
It argued that the cap violated the equal protection clause of the constitution. I am no constitutional scholar, but would a "rational basis" have changed this. The court substituted its brief review of this issue for the judgement of months/years of consideration by the legislature. If the real issue was equal protection, what does the rational basis arguement have to do with it?